Xref:	news-dnh.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:55
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Path:	news-dnh.mv.net!mv!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!jhvogel
From:	jhvogel AT me DOT umn DOT edu (Jeff Vogel \(Faculty\))
Subject:	size of .EXE files
Keywords:	.EXE size
Sender:	news AT news DOT tc DOT umn DOT edu (Usenet News Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host:	ena.me.umn.edu
Organization:	University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Date:	Fri, 2 Jun 1995 14:31:32 GMT
Lines:	17
To:	djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu

I have recently intalled djgpp112, and switched from using Microsoft's
QuickC (I put it back in the box - gcc has a lot more features). I have
been a little disappointed, however, in the size of the coff or .EXE files
produced. They are, for the few programs I have compared, about 50% larger
than those produced by QuickC, and if I used Microsoft's /EXEPACK link
option, the difference is a factor of about 2. Note that this is just comparing
coff files to QuickC executables.

My question is this - is there an option I haven't found for producing smaller
object/executables? I am not including debugging information, and have tried
optimizing, but so far I haven't changed the size much. I should also mention
that the programs I have tried are typically about 500 lines of code. Thanks
for any help.

--
	Jeff Vogel
	jhvogel AT me DOT umn DOT edu

- Raw text -